p
Yeah...that could go both ways...
A worthwhile article on this topic by Amy Conan Barrett:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4734&context=ndlr
Why not tossed out ‘settled law’? The Obama judges care not one wit about objective law. They are like some hive mind where the ratcheting of Federal Power upward is the only consistent course of action.
I like to poke fun at the liberals about this subject. I like to mention that at one time, the Dred Scott decision, and Plessy vs. Ferguson were considered settled law. They were Supreme Court decisions which created precedent. Thus, per stare decisis, they should never have been reconsidered.
Stare Decisis
Pura mierda
Welp. There goes Heller. It was nice while it lasted.
Imagine how national business could change if Wickard v. Filburn went the way of the Dodo.
The purpose of the Commerce Clause, I believe, was to “keep regular” any commerce between the Several States. That suggests that a business must cross state lines before Uncle Sugar even gets to look at it. A farmer growing wheat to feed his own chickens does NOT impact the price of wheat on the world market and Congress can damn well “leave us alone” on the issue. Again.
The best opinion in this case is the brilliant Gorsuch dissent trying to make prohibitions on double jeopardy actually mean something taking judicial notice of a fact we all know - the US criminal code has grown to the point that every adult American can be prosecuted for some violation or other.
Wow! This could get very, very interesting....
1 As the Court suggests, Congress is responsible for the proliferation of duplicative prosecutions for the same offenses by the States and the Federal Government. Ante, at 28. By legislating beyond its limited powers, Congress has taken from the People authority that they never gave. U. S. Const., Art. I, §8; The Federalist No. 22, p. 152 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) ("all legitimate authority" derives from "the consent of the people" (capitalization omitted)). And the Court has been complicit by blessing this questionable expansion of the Commerce Clause. See, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 57-74 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). Indeed, it seems possible that much of Title 18, among other parts of the U. S. Code, is premised on the Court’s incorrect interpretation of the Commerce Clause and is thus an incursion into the States’ general criminal jurisdiction and an imposition on the People’s liberty.